[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Sunday, 17 August 2008 at 19:20, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> "Robert Swain" <robert.swain at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > 2008/8/17 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at rangers.eu.org>:
> >> On Sunday, 17 August 2008 at 19:08, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> Simple question
> >>> Do we require all developers to ensure that *GPL license headers are
> >>> precissely copy & pastes of the one master copy diego picked?
> >>>
> >>> My vote is NO
> >>>
> >>> my argument is that this wastes developer time that can be spend doing
> >>> something more usefull even if its just little time, but such little
> >>> times add up, and its not only time to fix the headers but also to diff
> >>> them against a reference before each check in.
> >>> Besides its neither a issue of legal correctness if a LGPL variant is
> >>> used that happens to have a space more or less somewhere, or uses
> >>> "this library" instead of "ffmpeg" or was what diego prefered 4 years ago.
> >>
> >> Why not simply provide a template.h and template.c with the correct headers
> >> already present. Or maybe template_gpl.* and template_lgpl.*.
> >>
> >> That way we could have both correct headers and less wasted developer time.
> >
> > +1 Exactly what I was about to say.
> 
> Is it easier to copy from template.c than from utils.c?

Which utils.c?
[rathann at neeya ~/cvs/ffmpeg]$ find . -name utils.c
./libavformat/utils.c
./libavcodec/utils.c
./libavutil/utils.c

Is it documented somewhere that utils.c is the template? All of the
above are under the LGPL. What if someone wants a GPL template?

Regards,
R.

-- 
MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu | Livna http://rpm.livna.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
	-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan